Why Moderates Should Stop Hiding Behind Procedure

Reluctance to state our values led to the downfall of the IDW ideal

Photo by Jametlene Reskp on Unsplash

Today, I want to revisit right-wing influencer Christopher Rufo's 2023 article 'Why the IDW Fell Apart'. I actually already responded to it back in 2023, focusing on providing the other side of the story, defending the position of IDW fans who wouldn't support the politics of Trump and DeSantis. Since then, the 'anti-woke' discourse has been almost entirely taken over by those who share Rufo's views, and this discourse has been utilized by Donald Trump in both his 2024 campaign, as well as the radical anti-DEI measures he has taken since returning to the White House. In his recent address to congress, Trump openly proclaimed that America would be 'woke no longer' because of these policies, thus openly justifying his radical actions on anti-wokeness. Given these developments, we have to acknowledge that Rufo's version of anti-wokeness has won, at least for now, and it is now official US Federal Government policy. Meanwhile, the liberal version of anti-wokeness that is represented by people like myself is going nowhere, except being drowned out in the mainstream discourse, as well as tainted by association with the Trump-Rufo version in progressive-leaning circles. What I want to talk about this time is where we went wrong, and how to hopefully turn things around from here.

Some background for readers who are new to my writing first: while I have strongly opposed postmodern critical theory-driven activism and politics, and have sometimes called that position 'anti-woke' in line with common usage of the term, I have long opposed the Rufo-DeSantis-Trump version of anti-wokeism, where the existence of 'woke' ideas and policies is exaggerated, and this is used to justify illiberal and draconian government action that ultimately harms free speech, civil liberties and the welfare of real life people. My view is that Trump's invocation of anti-DEI to radically gut a wide range of programs that benefit disadvantaged minorities is totally unjustifiable. Instead, I have long believed that my mission is to work among those who support social justice and making life better for the disadvantaged, and convince them that postmodern critical theory is misguided. To do that, we need to demonstrate a real commitment to compassion, empathy and social justice ourselves, which politicians like Trump and DeSantis, as well as the broader 'New Right' that supports them, clearly don't. Legitimizing draconian anti-DEI policies that actually hurt real people in the real world is the last thing we should do, when we need to establish our social justice credentials to win people over. Moreover, the IDW was about having good faith discussions about complex ideas, bridging our divides and arriving at a better understanding of the truth in the process. The reactionary right's waging of emotional culture wars, and frequent use of dishonest tactics, is hence totally incompatible with the IDW's original mission and values.

The main reason I want to revisit Rufo's 2023 article now is because it has dawned on me that we, the anti-woke liberals, simply did not respond in strong enough terms to his arguments, and to the similar arguments of other radical reactionaries. We let them get away with looking strong, while we looked wishy-washy and useless, just like how Rufo framed us in that article. This, in part, was how they successfully hijacked the anti-woke discourse, and used it to justify what Trump is doing right now. In the article, Rufo basically made the case that IDW 'centrists' were unable to move beyond merely critiquing the 'woke left', because we wouldn't embrace Trump, we wouldn't embrace the political right and the Republican Party, and we wouldn't embrace the use of government power to shut down critical race theory (CRT) and DEI. Given the events of the first few weeks of the Trump administration, I actually feel very justified in refusing to embrace these things from the very beginning. In fact, it has dawned on me that we should have gone way harder in presenting the counterargument to Rufo and his fellow travelers on all of these points, and we should have been way clearer in highlighting our irreconcilable differences with them. If we did this, we might have prevented the common notion that 'anti-woke' belongs to the MAGA right, and we would have been in a much stronger position to oppose Trump using anti-DEI as an excuse for his radically reactionary policies.

In the article, Rufo basically presented his readers with a false binary choice: either remain in perpetual critique of the woke left without changing anything in the real world, or support politicians like Trump and DeSantis who would actually use government power to shut down the woke left. This is a false choice because, as previously discussed, we can also try to bring progressive-minded people on board with our critique, so they abandon postmodern critical theory and return to old-school liberalism. In fact, we are having more and more success with that every year. Left-liberal media outlets like the New York Times are increasingly moving away from the postmodern critical theory worldview, and even far-left outlets like Novara Media are dropping wokeness nowadays. It has also been a while since most of us have last heard of a left-wing cancel culture incident (while the Trump-led right-wing assault on free speech has dominated headlines by contrast). All this, I believe, vindicates my preferred strategy.

Rufo criticized us of being 'unwilling to use political power to regulate the state'. This is an absurd accusation, but it was a point that I think we conceded because we simply didn't respond to. Instead, we hid behind notions of liberal neutrality, which just gave credibility to Rufo's accusation. As Rufo rightly points out, things like the public school curriculum are actually part of the state, and are legitimately amenable to change by political power. What we should have said was that we don't trust people like Trump and DeSantis to wield that political power to enact that change, even if they do so in the name of anti-wokeness, and even if they do successfully somewhat limit the spread of postmodern critical theory. The reason for this is clear, if we just look at what is happening right now under Trump: we simply can't support a course of political action with actual harmful, illiberal and unjust effects, even if it also ends up denting 'wokeness'. To sacrifice the welfare of actual people in real life over some philosophical battle is simply unjustifiable, for those of us who still have a compassionate conscience. Moreover, politicians like Trump and DeSantis clearly have an authoritarian reactionary agenda, and we are legitimately concerned that they aren't going to stop where they are supposed to. The events of recent weeks have proven our concerns correct.

The bottom line here is, we are not unwilling to use political power to regulate the state, but we are justifiably unwilling to allow reactionary culture warrior politicians with zero compassion and strong authoritarian tendencies wield political power, period. If a moderate, reasonable political leader with a demonstrated commitment to classical liberal values wielded political power (in a way consistent with long-standing safeguards) to limit the spread of CRT in school curricula, or to ensure that meritocracy prevails in government agencies, I think my fellow classical liberals and centrists would be much more willing to support that. It is both the authoritarian temperament of Trump and DeSantis, and the illiberal, unilateral and reckless way they wield their political power, that makes us very uncomfortable.

Which brings me onto my next point: in the article, Rufo explicitly argues that those opposed to wokeness must support the Republican Party, because America is a two-party state, and in his view, only the Republicans would do anything to stop wokeness. He even named names, praising Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson for being willing to support the political right, while criticizing John McWhorter for refusing to do so. Again, I think those of us who are unwilling to side with the political right should have pushed back harder on this line of reasoning. As I said before, my case for opposing postmodern critical theory rests on the fact that this worldview is actually misguided in terms of trying to achieve social justice, while old-school liberalism is the correct way to achieve social justice. But to make this case, one has to believe in compassion, empathy and social justice in the first place. Currently, the political right, as represented by the Republican Party in America, objectively does not believe in any of these things. For evidence, just look at the online right, where open racism, antisemitism and anti-LGBT sentiment is everywhere. When I say racism, I actually mean people disparaging interracial marriage, or spreading fake news about immigrant communities, rather than just questioning immigration levels. Similarly, the anti-LGBT sentiment I was referring to includes things like deliberately picking on LGBT people just for existing (see how many Republicans have been acting towards Rep. Sarah McBride for example), or calling them 'groomers'. It is certainly not just about issues like women's sports. It is actual hate we are talking about. Given all this, plus given the real world chaos and harm Trump's policies and executive orders have caused, we really can't support the political right in good conscience, if we still believe in compassion, empathy and social justice.

In fact, I think that we should turn Rufo's argument around: given that America (and most other Western countries) are two-party systems, if we morally cannot support the right, we have no choice but to at least tentatively support the center-left, at least at the present moment, because most people in the center-left at least still have some decency, despite their sometimes misguided actions. And I do maintain that, the current state of the right, including the actions of Trump and Musk, and their cheerleaders in the media both old and new, are totally repugnant to my own moral sensibilities. What people like myself need to say then, in no uncertain terms to people like Rufo, is that even for all their faults, the Democrats still represent the 'lesser evil', when compared to the Republicans under Trump (and they are clearly Trump's party right now, as demonstrated in how unwilling they are to defy him). I actually think the same calculation would also apply to the two-party systems of many other Western countries right now, as the influence of Trumpism is being felt on the right across the West, and the New Right is actually a global phenomenon (with NatCon holding meetings in London, and CPAC having events everywhere from Hungary to Australia). What we also need to remember is that it is only when we are in the center-left tent that we can effectively persuade others in the tent to abandon postmodern critical theory. The moment you pledge allegiance to the right, you stop being able to do that. Sometimes, I actually get the feeling that while people like myself are here to solve the problem of left illiberalism, other people actually want to use the problem to help Republicans score political points. This would only further polarize the political landscape, and help the postmodernists maintain their grip on the left.

Ultimately, I also think that one important reason why we looked weaker than Rufo et al. was because we focused too much on procedure, and not enough on our underlying values. Classical liberal values are ultimately more about procedure than actual values, and say nothing about which outcomes we prefer. Don't get me wrong, I still believe we need classical liberal values, and there are plenty of good reasons for upholding them. However, let's be honest that our support for classical liberal values has always been implicitly tied to our preferred outcomes. By hiding behind the neutrality of procedural arguments, and refusing to make our outcome preferences explicit, we looked weaker than those who are willing to do so (including both the reactionary right and the woke left alike). The fact is, we uphold classical liberal values because we don't want radical reactionaries like Trump and DeSantis to be able to take actions that would cause harms to people in real life. Classical liberal values and their associated checks and balances in the system would limit any damage someone like Trump might do. We are seeing it in action right now, with the courts trying to block many of Trump's controversial orders. While we want to shift away from some of the woke excesses of the 2010s, we certainly don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, which is what Trump is effectively doing, by demolishing programs and rights that have been in force for decades in many cases. Many of us are justifiably worried about the impacts, both immediate and long-term, of these actions.

I suspect many 'classical liberal' or 'centrist' IDW fans are actually 'progressive conservative' in their worldview: wanting to conserve the fundamental institutions and traditions of society, while also supporting reasonable progress that is rooted in practical need, and broadly consistent with our long-standing values. Classical liberal values and their associated checks and balances tend to deliver outcomes consistent with progressive conservatism. While this is not the only reason we uphold classical liberal values, it is indeed an important reason. On the other hand, what Trump is doing, with the full support of the New Right, is neither progressive nor conservative. It is actually the opposite: it is radically regressive. I guess the real difference between myself and Rufo is basically the difference between the progressive conservative agenda and the radical reactionary agenda, i.e. the difference between an agenda of gradualist improvement versus an agenda of hating the status quo and attempting to violently turn back the clock to some imagined glorious past. While we might both oppose the woke left's brand of radicalism, we clearly have incompatible, totally irreconcilable worldviews. Previously, many of us tried to allude to this difference, but only by hiding behind the proceduralist arguments associated with classical liberalism, i.e. by calling out how people like Rufo, Trump and DeSantis are willing to violate classical liberal procedures. However, if people like Rufo are willing to explicitly spell out what they ultimately want, and we aren't willing to do so to the same level, we would look weak and dishonest by comparison. Therefore, it is time that we clearly and explicitly spell out what outcomes we want, and how we are going to get there. Speaking for myself, I want 'progressive conservative' outcomes, and I believe that upholding classical liberal values like free speech and checks and balances on political power, while working within the center-left big tent in the current context, is going to get us there.

---

TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Progressive Conservative Manifesto, the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series. She is also the author of her autobiography The TaraElla Story.